Talk:Work
1) The figures can be placed on the right hand side of the page. 2) There is no reference to any application or topic related to Aerospace Engineering. I wish you could include one of them. 3) There is no link to your profile. Hsivk 21:26, September 29, 2009 (UTC)Siva Harikumar Try discussing the units of work a little as a way to explain the physical concept of (mechanical) work. --Wengler 18:45, September 30, 2009 (UTC) The content that is here is good, but it could use more discussions of different kinds of work (mechanical, fluid, electrical, etc.) See the article on power for examples. Also, emphasize the differences between work and heat. (Work is ORGANIZED, and this fact is almost the definition of work). -- Matt Daskilewicz The page looks very good, but probably modifying the following things will make it better: 1) Uneven and/or unnecessary spacing between paragraphs. 2) No links to sources in the figures. 3) Missing the simplest definition of work ( Work = Force X Distance ) 4) No discussion about the units. Also, providing units under different unit systems will give the page a broader usability. 5) A briefing at the top of the page, about what this page is talking about and what questions are addressed. 6) No explicit discussion about the measurement. 7) Discussion about 'Impossible Process': was it asked ? May be a making 'weak detonation' a link will indicate that more on this topic can be found else where. 8) In the last reference, the author's first name is Stephen. --Fahmed7 19:46, October 1, 2009 (UTC)faisal ahmed Most of the suggestions have been implemented and the page looks good. However I still feel that you could have talked about different kinds of work as Matt suggested and an example related to Aerospace Engineering. But overall, this is one of the better wiki pages that I have browsed through and it looks like a job well done!! Hsivk 20:33, October 20, 2009 (UTC)Siva Harikumar Your article is OK, very-well organized and the content is pretty good. It looks like you took most of the comments into account. I have only 2 suggestions about the content: in the Definition section: "negative work on the other hand is created when the force and displacement act 180° opposite of each other". That is true but I think you should rather explain that the angle between the two has to be larger than 90° and non necessarily 180°. in the Irreversible Process section: "Almost all thermodynamic processes are irreversible" I guess that any process is irreversible. Thus you may just write that some of them are considered reversible from an engineering point of view. Jean-Baptiste Mercier This article is of a really good quality! However you may want to correct a few minor errors, such as: *The angle JB Mercier pointed out, and in the Joule's experiments section, and "The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy is conserved throughout a system", you must mention that you're considering an isolated system. Otherwise, there is no reason for energy to be conserved. *you wrote: "it can be said that the ability for work to be an '''organized' energy transfer process compared to heat transfer is an extremely important characteristic of work which is demonstrated by Joule's experiments''", but I couldn't find the explanation. Beyond those remarks, I think your article is manly focused on a theoretical approach of things, whereas I expected more concrete examples or applications for engineering. For example for the entropy paragraph, you could just have given the historical statement of 2nd law which says that a mono thermal thermodynamic cycle can not produce work.You could have also spoke more on engine cycles, showing that work is done when the PV cycle is done clockwise, talked about enthalpy (because it's a useful quantity for flowing systems),and that useful work done by a system is maximized for a reversible process... Jherault3 18:32, October 23, 2009 (UTC)